If you're going to drink the carbon kool aid, specifically with respect to cars, then you have to acknowledge that the diesel side of the equation has much more potential to have a carbon neutral fuel source than the gasoline side. Though with advancements being potentially made in using algae like organisms to produce ethanol this could reverse, but I am putting my money on bio-diesel being far more readily available. Being environmentally friendly is much more than a carbon question though, and to simplify it as only carbon is... well just wrong.
It was an ok book, very idealistic. But the problem with it is that Ayn Rand can say in 50 pages what could easily be said in 1 paragraph. The John Gault soliloquy sucked the life out of me. So yeah, that was kind of life changing.
A little bid misleading. The human adaptation is less about the organism, and more about the things we build to help us adapt. Part of that coping is to rely on other things (flora and fauna) that are much less able to follow suit, and it is those things that are threatened. Not to say that humans would not find other ways, rather that is the point, we will find other ways. But it is interesting to note that we can't really save the rest of the ecosystem, so we'd better pay attention to what is going on so we can be better prepared. Humans are exceptional in this way . . . we have the ability to change our environment to suit ourselves (that is, indoor vs. outdoor not the damn genesis project). Insects do it too.
I wonder why it upsets some people here (of all places) to look into how the climate change is effecting different aspects of the ecosystem. Yes it has been happening for the entire life of the planet, but we're only just now (say the last 50 years) able to observe the effects in meaningful ways. I thought that geeks were supposed to be interested in that sort of thing. It's not like the article stated "SUV drivers and coal plants are threatening the survival of wild coffee". I like your reply, but think perhaps stronger language might be in order. The OP is certainly way across the idiot line, as climate change could quite realistically be called the cause of all existance.
Americans may not do it, but certain schools in Kansas did do it for a time. Which is good, because without it we would not have his noodly appendage. But it will not surprise me to occasionally hear of some or the other school board being pressured to teach intelligent design as part of the sciences.
Yes. Math is a construct, or a tool that assists in scientific pursuits. I reacted to that last sentence and came in to find out if anyone else did. So where do you draw the line? If we look at some well understood mathematical principle (let's say Pathagoreum's theorum), is it any less valid as a theory because it is confined to a human abstraction of the universe (geometry)? Ok, perhaps less valid is the wrong wording, but is that not still a science? It is testable, repeatable, and started with an empirical understanding. I still fall on the not a science side, but have trouble justifying that even to myself.
Of course they won't. When I jump out of a burning airplane with my precious I just use the iJump app, which slows my fall and or let's me fly to my destination. Upon landing I get the adoration of anyone lucky enough to have seen it.
To play devil's advocate: in the context of the internet there really has never been an expectation of privacy, or at least the expectation has been that you have to go a long way to achieve privacy. Perhaps the meaning of the CEOs statement is more along the lines of if you are doing something that you want to be private, perhaps you should not do it out in public. I agree that the internet is in effect a large public space and treat it so. I feel the same way about the roads, which is why I don't equate red light cameras with "teh big br0thorz".
And the one that is accounted for is still funded at an extremely high rate. Cut it in half. The states can then have more money with which to do the other two, and the overall tax burden goes down.
Evolutionary pressure pushes both genders to sleep around. And your take of women as the nest builders is 1950s gender role at is best, but not a biological truth.
As the LHC gets closer to running at full power, the events that prevent it will become more and more unlikely. So it's like an improbability drive, and what we'll see is more and more unlikely events happening globally. So all of those things will go wrong at some point. I just started playing the lottery, and am hoping not to get squashed by a falling whale.
I love that commercial with the young woman at the coffee shop . . . "I wanted a computer I am not afraid will crash" . . . MS Designer: "Ooohhhhhhh, crashes are a baaaad thing. Ok, lets fix that one."
How is that attributable to capitalism? Roll on 1984 . . . was he talking to a friend in his home when he said it? Oh, he was talking to the press? I'm confused. Is this some kind of well crafted troll?
Yes the job of the police is to make sure that the law is followed, by fining, arresting, or otherwise punishing those who break the law. That is not preventing the law from being broken. It may seem that way to you, but it is re-active, not pro-active. To prevent crime you would have to somehow anticipate someone breaking the law, and interceding before they had a chance to do it. Sometimes this happens when police are chasing a repeating criminal (bank robber, serial killer, etc). But for traffic this never happens. What you are talking about is deterrence. And I would argue that it is a logical fallacy, as the only people deterred are those who would not have broken the law in the first place. It also is not crime prevention in any case.
Exactly what I was thinking. I mean, since we have free market capitalism here it must mean that we have reached the true price of the service. Right? I guess cheaper plans in other countries are subsidized by the market controlling commie dictators.
I like to look at that shiny silver apple in a sea of black on the back of my iPhone while I mastrubate. The battery cover would so totally kill my rager. Now to click Post Anonymously . . .
I also have problems with the mandatory coverage. Without the public option it is worse as the gov is then mandating that I give money to private industry. And Barney frank is an idiot.
So you hear fox news portray the health care bill as "government run health care" and you believe that this is an accurate enough depiction to parrot? Are you 15? There are a lot of good points of debate to the bills in question, but simply parroting the right wing nut job line shows pretty low critical thinking abilities. But I can see from your sig that you really don't have much to offer in the way of solving problems.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to drink the carbon kool aid, specifically with respect to cars, then you have to acknowledge that the diesel side of the equation has much more potential to have a carbon neutral fuel source than the gasoline side. Though with advancements being potentially made in using algae like organisms to produce ethanol this could reverse, but I am putting my money on bio-diesel being far more readily available. Being environmentally friendly is much more than a carbon question though, and to simplify it as only carbon is ... well just wrong.
I'd mod you informative if I had them.
It was an ok book, very idealistic. But the problem with it is that Ayn Rand can say in 50 pages what could easily be said in 1 paragraph. The John Gault soliloquy sucked the life out of me. So yeah, that was kind of life changing.
whoosh
Pretty much, unless you are willing to go 7-30 days or so between them all. Then they can all be mind blowing
A little bid misleading. The human adaptation is less about the organism, and more about the things we build to help us adapt. Part of that coping is to rely on other things (flora and fauna) that are much less able to follow suit, and it is those things that are threatened. Not to say that humans would not find other ways, rather that is the point, we will find other ways. But it is interesting to note that we can't really save the rest of the ecosystem, so we'd better pay attention to what is going on so we can be better prepared. Humans are exceptional in this way . . . we have the ability to change our environment to suit ourselves (that is, indoor vs. outdoor not the damn genesis project). Insects do it too.
I wonder why it upsets some people here (of all places) to look into how the climate change is effecting different aspects of the ecosystem. Yes it has been happening for the entire life of the planet, but we're only just now (say the last 50 years) able to observe the effects in meaningful ways. I thought that geeks were supposed to be interested in that sort of thing. It's not like the article stated "SUV drivers and coal plants are threatening the survival of wild coffee". I like your reply, but think perhaps stronger language might be in order. The OP is certainly way across the idiot line, as climate change could quite realistically be called the cause of all existance.
Or on the capitol building.
Americans may not do it, but certain schools in Kansas did do it for a time. Which is good, because without it we would not have his noodly appendage. But it will not surprise me to occasionally hear of some or the other school board being pressured to teach intelligent design as part of the sciences.
Yes. Math is a construct, or a tool that assists in scientific pursuits. I reacted to that last sentence and came in to find out if anyone else did. So where do you draw the line? If we look at some well understood mathematical principle (let's say Pathagoreum's theorum), is it any less valid as a theory because it is confined to a human abstraction of the universe (geometry)? Ok, perhaps less valid is the wrong wording, but is that not still a science? It is testable, repeatable, and started with an empirical understanding. I still fall on the not a science side, but have trouble justifying that even to myself.
Of course they won't. When I jump out of a burning airplane with my precious I just use the iJump app, which slows my fall and or let's me fly to my destination. Upon landing I get the adoration of anyone lucky enough to have seen it.
To play devil's advocate: in the context of the internet there really has never been an expectation of privacy, or at least the expectation has been that you have to go a long way to achieve privacy. Perhaps the meaning of the CEOs statement is more along the lines of if you are doing something that you want to be private, perhaps you should not do it out in public. I agree that the internet is in effect a large public space and treat it so. I feel the same way about the roads, which is why I don't equate red light cameras with "teh big br0thorz".
And the one that is accounted for is still funded at an extremely high rate. Cut it in half. The states can then have more money with which to do the other two, and the overall tax burden goes down.
Evolutionary pressure pushes both genders to sleep around. And your take of women as the nest builders is 1950s gender role at is best, but not a biological truth.
This is some good humor. Well done.
As the LHC gets closer to running at full power, the events that prevent it will become more and more unlikely. So it's like an improbability drive, and what we'll see is more and more unlikely events happening globally. So all of those things will go wrong at some point. I just started playing the lottery, and am hoping not to get squashed by a falling whale.
I love that commercial with the young woman at the coffee shop . . . "I wanted a computer I am not afraid will crash" . . . MS Designer: "Ooohhhhhhh, crashes are a baaaad thing. Ok, lets fix that one."
How is that attributable to capitalism? Roll on 1984 . . . was he talking to a friend in his home when he said it? Oh, he was talking to the press? I'm confused. Is this some kind of well crafted troll?
Sounds like some prior art.
Yes the job of the police is to make sure that the law is followed, by fining, arresting, or otherwise punishing those who break the law. That is not preventing the law from being broken. It may seem that way to you, but it is re-active, not pro-active. To prevent crime you would have to somehow anticipate someone breaking the law, and interceding before they had a chance to do it. Sometimes this happens when police are chasing a repeating criminal (bank robber, serial killer, etc). But for traffic this never happens. What you are talking about is deterrence. And I would argue that it is a logical fallacy, as the only people deterred are those who would not have broken the law in the first place. It also is not crime prevention in any case.
you are under the impression (thankfully mistaken) that the police are there to prevent crimes. It's a nice thought, but too slippery a slope.
Exactly what I was thinking. I mean, since we have free market capitalism here it must mean that we have reached the true price of the service. Right? I guess cheaper plans in other countries are subsidized by the market controlling commie dictators.
I like to look at that shiny silver apple in a sea of black on the back of my iPhone while I mastrubate. The battery cover would so totally kill my rager. Now to click Post Anonymously . . .
I also have problems with the mandatory coverage. Without the public option it is worse as the gov is then mandating that I give money to private industry. And Barney frank is an idiot.
So you hear fox news portray the health care bill as "government run health care" and you believe that this is an accurate enough depiction to parrot? Are you 15? There are a lot of good points of debate to the bills in question, but simply parroting the right wing nut job line shows pretty low critical thinking abilities. But I can see from your sig that you really don't have much to offer in the way of solving problems.